Cambridge AS & A Level Law 9084/32 is the May/June 2026 Paper 3 (Law of Contract), variant 2. It is an A Level component that lasts 1 hour 30 minutes, is worth 75 marks and is sat by full A Level candidates. You answer three questions: one of two problem scenarios in Section A and two of three essays in Section B, each worth 25 marks. Every question uses the same mark split, with knowledge (AO1) carrying 12 of the 25. This guide goes through every question and shows what the official mark scheme credited. The paper and its mark scheme are free on the Tutopiya Learning Portal.

For an overview of all four 9084 papers from this series, see A Level Law 9084 May/June 2026 past papers: what came up and how it was marked.

9084/32 at a glance

Rubric: answer one question from Section A and two questions from Section B, three questions in total.

Question	Section	Type	Topic	Marks
1	A (either)	Problem	Zac’s noisy washing machine that won’t clean at low temperatures: rights and remedies under the Consumer Rights Act 2015	25
2	A (or)	Problem	Eve’s agreements with a restaurant and with her brother: intention to create legal relations	25
3	B (choose two)	Essay	Are the rules on contracts with minors fair to both parties?	25
4	B (choose two)	Essay	Do part-payment of a debt and promissory estoppel strike a fair balance?	25
5	B (choose two)	Essay	Do the rules separating terms from representations ensure fairness?	25
			Total answered (one from Section A + two from Section B)	75

Question-by-question walkthrough

How every question is marked

All five questions use the same grid, with each assessment objective marked separately and then added:

• AO1 Knowledge and understanding, out of 12 (four levels). Level 4 (10–12) is accurate and detailed in most relevant areas, with thorough knowledge of the key cases or statutes and correct terminology. Level 3 (7–9) is mostly accurate but thin in places, Level 2 (4–6) has some accuracy but lacks detail, and Level 1 (1–3) is limited.
• AO2 Analysis and application, out of 5. The top level (4–5) needs focused, reasoned analysis throughout, supported by well-developed use of rules and cases; 2–3 is some reasoned analysis; 1 is limited.
• AO3 Evaluation, out of 8. The top level (6–8) needs reasoned evaluation of most of the relevant issues, supported by relevant material, with a coherent argument; 3–5 is some evaluation, reasoned at times; 1–2 is limited.

The mark scheme tells examiners to give the top mark in a level if you meet it convincingly, a middle mark if adequately and the bottom mark if you only just meet it. In the two problems, AO2 and AO3 come from applying the law to the facts and reaching reasoned conclusions; in the essays, from analysing the rules and judging how fair they are.

Section A: the problem questions

Question 1: Zac and the WhisperWhirl (25 marks)

Zac, who lives in a small apartment, bought a washing machine advertised as the quietest on the market after telling the salesperson he needed it to clean at low temperatures. Within a week it was grinding loudly and leaving stains at low temperatures, and he complained straight away.

• AO1, the law: under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, s2(2) defines a trader (acting for trade, business, craft or profession) and s2(3) a consumer (an individual acting wholly or mainly outside one). Goods must be of satisfactory quality (s9), fit for any particular purpose the consumer made known before buying (s10) and match their description (s11). The remedies are the short-term right to reject (s20), rejection within 30 days with a refund within 14 days (s22), repair or replacement within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience (s23), and a price reduction or the final right to reject (s24).
• Application, the advertisement: XL is likely to be a trader and Zac a consumer. A machine that grinds loudly does not match its “quietest on the market” description, a breach of s11, and appears faulty, so it is not of satisfactory quality under s9.
• Application, the salesperson’s recommendation: Zac made his low-temperature purpose known before buying, so the machine’s failure to clean properly means it is not fit for that particular purpose under s10.
• Remedies: Zac complained within a week, so he is inside the 30-day window to reject and get a refund within 14 days (s20 and s22). Alternatively he could ask for a repair or replacement (s23), and if that is not possible or fails, a price reduction under s24 reflecting the reduced value.

Question 2: Eve, ABC and Felix (25 marks)

Eve agreed over lunch to design a logo and promotional materials for the ABC restaurant for £2000, shook hands on it and started work; her brother Felix agreed to print samples and ordered supplies. ABC then cancelled and refused to pay, and Eve stood Felix down.

• AO1, commercial agreements: there is a very strong but rebuttable presumption of intention to create legal relations (Esso v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company). It can be rebutted by clear words showing no legal intent (Jones v Vernon Pools, Confetti Records, Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd) or where the words are not clear enough to be a specific promise (Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining). A statement denying previous liability may simply explain the offer now being made (Edwards v Skyways). Courts also look at the location, whether it was a “gentleman’s agreement” and how formal it was (Blue v Ashley).
• AO1, domestic agreements: agreements between family members carry a rebuttable presumption of no intention (Jones v Padavatton, Balfour v Balfour). It can be rebutted where the parties acted in reliance on the promise (Parker v Clark, Simpkins v Pays) or where there is a commercial basis (Albert v Motor Insurers’ Bureau).
• Eve and ABC: a commercial deal between two businesses, so intention is presumed. Specific terms were agreed, suggesting both sides saw it as binding, and nothing was said to rebut the presumption: they shook hands and confirmed they would work together. The informal lunch setting is the point to weigh against this before you reach a reasoned conclusion.
• Eve and Felix: a family agreement between brother and sister, so the presumption is against intention. But it sits in a commercial context, and Felix ordered supplies in reliance on it, either of which may be enough to rebut the presumption. Again, reach a reasoned conclusion.

The mark scheme asks for a reasoned conclusion on each agreement, so give two verdicts, not one.

Section B: the essays (choose two)

Question 3: are the rules on minors’ contracts fair to both parties? (25 marks)

• AO1: a minor is under 18 (Family Law Reform Act 1969). Contracts binding on the minor are contracts for necessaries, where the minor pays only a reasonable price for goods actually supplied (s3 Sale of Goods Act 1979; Nash v Inman, Chapple v Cooper, Fawcett v Smethurst), and beneficial contracts of service that are substantially for the minor’s benefit (De Francesco v Barnum, Doyle v White City Stadium, Clements v London and North Western Railway Co, Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports Management). Contracts with continuing obligations, such as leases, shares and partnerships, are voidable (Edwards v Carter, Steinberg v Scala, Corpe v Overton). Under the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987, the minor may not be bound but the other party is, a minor may confirm a contract at 18, a guarantee can be enforced (s2) and restitution is available (s3).
• Evaluation points: the rules aim to protect minors from agreements they may not understand or that exploit them, while giving others contractual certainty; s3 protects adults from unscrupulous minors who have been unjustly enriched; minors are bound by contracts that benefit them; s2 lets minors use a guarantor to rent property or borrow. Against: if goods are not necessaries the other party has limited remedies, the meaning of necessaries depends on the minor’s background, which seems unfair, and a minor can repudiate a voidable contract while still a minor or shortly after turning 18, leaving the other party uncertain; money can be recovered only if there is a total failure of consideration.

Question 4: part-payment and promissory estoppel (25 marks)

• AO1: consideration is something of value given in exchange for a promise (Currie v Misa, Dunlop v Selfridge). Part-payment of a debt does not discharge the whole debt (Pinnel’s Case, confirmed in Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove), and a creditor pressured into accepting less is not bound by that agreement (D & C Builders Ltd v Rees). The two exceptions are accord and satisfaction, where different consideration is given (British Russian Gazette v Associated Newspapers), and promissory estoppel. Estoppel needs an existing contractual relationship (Combe v Combe), a promise to give up strict rights (China Pacific SA v Food Corp of India), reliance on the promise (Alan Co Ltd v El Nasr) and that it would be inequitable to go back on it (D & C Builders v Rees). It is a shield, not a sword (Combe v Combe), and it suspends rather than extinguishes rights (Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electrical Co Ltd).
• Evaluation points: the part-payment rule stops debtors cutting their debt without agreement or consideration and gives creditors certainty and the right to the full amount; but it can be harsh on debtors who can only pay part. Promissory estoppel deals with informal promises and stops creditors breaking promises a debtor relied on, which promotes fairness; the reliance requirement protects genuine cases but can stop some debtors relying on a promise. Both aim at fairness but may not fully address the hardship of debtors in financial difficulty.

Question 5: terms and representations (25 marks)

• AO1: express terms can be written or oral; a representation is a statement made in negotiations that may induce the contract but is not part of it. Written terms are clear, but oral terms must be shown to be incorporated, and the court takes an objective approach. The factors: the importance attached to the statement (Bannerman v White, Couchman v Hill); special knowledge or skill (Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams, Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors)); previous course of dealing (J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw, Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd); the time between the statement and the contract (Routledge v McKay); reduction into writing (Birch v Paramount Estates (Liverpool) Ltd, L’Estrange v Graucob); and the parol evidence rule.
• Evaluation points: the rules aim for a clear, mutual agreement and so support fairness in theory, and written terms give clarity. But oral terms are harder to prove, which favours the party with more knowledge or persuasive skill; past dealings may be unfair if one party assumes old terms still apply; complex terms drafted by one side, fine print and “take it or leave it” contracts let the stronger party impose terms; courts may scrutinise one-sided terms, but protection depends on judicial interpretation. Statutes such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 add safeguards in some contracts.

Where the marks are on 9084/32

By assessment objective, across the three questions you answer:

Assessment objective	Per question	Across three questions
AO1 Knowledge and understanding	12	36
AO2 Analysis and application	5	15
AO3 Evaluation	8	24
Total	25	75

• Knowledge is almost half the paper. 36 of the 75 marks are AO1, so name the right sections and cases. On Question 1, the Consumer Rights Act section numbers are the knowledge.
• Evaluation outweighs analysis. AO3 is worth 8 per question against 5 for AO2, so every essay needs a sustained argument about fairness, and every problem needs a reasoned conclusion.
• Problems and essays are worth the same. Choose your Section A question on the area where you know the most law, because AO1 carries the most marks.

How to self-mark 9084/32 with the mark scheme

1. List the law you used. Compare your sections and cases with the indicative content. Accurate, detailed coverage of most relevant areas is Level 4 (10–12); missing whole areas, such as the remedies in Question 1 or the domestic presumption in Question 2, holds you lower.
2. Give AO2 a mark out of 5. In a problem, check that every legal point is applied to a specific fact, such as Zac’s complaint within a week or Felix ordering supplies. In an essay, check that you explain how the cases work, not just what happened in them.
3. Give AO3 a mark out of 8. In the essays, ask whether you weighed the rules from both sides and argued towards a judgement about fairness. In the problems, check for a reasoned conclusion on each issue or party.
4. Place each mark within its level. Top of the level if you meet it convincingly, middle if adequately, bottom if only just.
5. Add the three marks and record which AO cost you most, so your next practice targets it.

Sit 9084/32 as a timed mock

You have 90 minutes for three 25-mark answers, about 26 minutes each with time to plan and check.

Block	Marks	Time
Read the paper, choose and plan your three questions	–	6 minutes
Section A problem	25	26 minutes
First Section B essay	25	26 minutes
Second Section B essay	25	26 minutes
Check conclusions and case names	–	6 minutes

For the problem, plan one line per issue: the rule, the fact it applies to, and the outcome. For each essay, decide your overall answer before you write, so the evaluation builds towards it.

Other May/June 2026 9084 papers

• 9084 Paper 12 (English Legal System)
• 9084 Paper 22 (Criminal Law)
• 9084 Paper 42 (Law of Tort)

Practise and download

• Download 9084/32 and its mark scheme on the Learning Portal →
• All 9084 May/June 2026 papers: overview and marking patterns
• Try a free A Level Law quiz

Need help with a 9084 topic? Book a free trial lesson with an A Level Law tutor →

Frequently asked questions

How many questions do you answer on 9084 Paper 32 May/June 2026? +

Three. You answer one of the two problem questions in Section A and two of the three essays in Section B. Every question is worth 25 marks, so the paper is out of 75 and lasts 1 hour 30 minutes.

Which Consumer Rights Act 2015 sections did 9084/32 Question 1 need? +

The mark scheme listed s2(2) and s2(3) for trader and consumer, s9 satisfactory quality, s10 fitness for a particular purpose, s11 goods matching their description, and the remedies in s20 (short-term right to reject), s22 (30 days to reject), s23 (repair or replacement) and s24 (price reduction or final right to reject).

What was the answer to the Eve problem in 9084/32 Question 2? +

The Eve and ABC deal is commercial, so intention to create legal relations is presumed and nothing in the facts rebuts it, though the casual lunch setting can be discussed. The Eve and Felix deal is between siblings, so the presumption is against intention, but its commercial context and Felix ordering supplies in reliance may rebut it.

How are the 25-mark questions on 9084/32 marked? +

Each assessment objective is marked separately: AO1 knowledge out of 12, AO2 analysis and application out of 5, and AO3 evaluation out of 8. Problems and essays use the same split, and the top AO1 level, 10 to 12, needs accurate, detailed knowledge with key cases or statutes.

What were the 9084/32 essay questions in 2026? +

Question 3 asked whether the rules on contracts with minors are fair to both parties. Question 4 asked whether the rules on part-payment of a debt and promissory estoppel strike a fair balance. Question 5 asked how far the rules separating terms from representations ensure fairness.

Where can I download 9084/32 May/June 2026 and its mark scheme? +

Both are free to download and print on the Tutopiya Learning Portal, on the Cambridge AS & A Level Law 9084 past papers page.

Ready to Excel in Your Studies?

Get personalised help from Tutopiya's expert tutors. Whether it's IGCSE, IB, A-Levels, or any other curriculum — we match you with the perfect tutor and your first session is free.

Book Your Free Trial